AustinMN

Far worse, in my opinion, are containers that do not stand up to the local climate. Creativity in containers is part of the game. But if the container will not do well in the local conditions (whether they be rain, flood, extreme heat, mountains of snow, etc.) that should be discouraged. I have seen caches that were in a typical water bottle and tied securely to a tree. It works really well, because they are in an area that ends up underwater every spring during the thaw. Check for the letter "TOTT"...it stands for "Tools Of The Trade" and often means tweezers or soem other log-retrieval device. You are complaining about a total non-problem.

+1

The key word is "generally". Logging a Find in a case like this creates a false impression for the next finders that the cache is in place. You have to be kidding me. Is it that hard to read a log that short? BTW, a string of DNF's, plus my "diligent search" DNF, will get a NM from me (depending on the difficulty). I can't imagine anyone planning to hike 5 miles to try to find a cache without reading the prior logs. BTW, I have found caches plenty of where multiple DNF's occured before me. In one case, the 5 prior DNF's (in a row) had a combined 45 years of experience and 50,000+ finds. Those who filter on strictly a string of DNF's are only cheating themselves.

It's irrelevant because the people signing the log after you have nothing to do with the quality of the cache, yet they're the ones your being rude to because the cache was uninspiring. It would make more sense if, when you were uninspired, you simply didn't sign the log at all. This wins the prize as the most absurd post of the week.

No reason was given for removing the cache. Any explanation for that?

It happens. But keep this in mind - geocaching is a game. People who cheat generally only cheat themselves. On two occasions, I have logged DNF's with a NM, only to have the cache owner replace the cache and then tell me to go ahead and log the find because the container was missing. So the opposite also happens. It's a game. Don't get worked up about it.

I posted snippets from my correspondence and summarized what I generally understood from others' correspondence. I agree that it comes across as bad form to post someone else's specific correspondence unless they're expecting it, at least while the correspondence is civil and reasoned. I might feel differently if I received threatening correspondence. It also means that what my summary of their correspondence is second-hand, about as useful to the reviewer as hearsay. Chris This isn't a court of law. The reviewer can use the hearsay to question the CO about the facts. Austin

BTW, posting e-mails might be OK in the US but it's not in the EU (privacy laws) just in case there's more discussion about legal/illegal stuff. Technically, a private email is under copyright protection. It is not under privacy protection. Even in Europe, there is no reasonable way to even imagine that an unencrypted email is functionally private, even if it legally is. While it is unlikely, an email travelling to someone across the street could end up passing through dozens of servers and six countries on its way to the recipient, every one of which has at least a temporary copy of it. Austin

Indeed. Unrolling a log is such a huge burden on the next cacher. I can't believe the game has survived. It's worse than putting a pencil in a ziplock bag. It's worse than logging your cache on the wrong day because you forgot to change the date when you were typing the log! Who do these people think they are? Next thing you know, we'll have complaints because the coordinates were off by a foot (0.3 meters).

That's OK, but just recognize that in most of these cases, what you're saying is "It's not worth my time to unroll the log sheet, so I'll make someone else do it, instead." I'm particularly amused by you inflicting this on later cachers with the entirely irrelevant justification that the cache didn't inspire you. No, you're interpreting it that way. The cacher isn't saying anything, they're just signing the log. Whether he's conscious of it or not, the burden of unrolling the log -- that awful burden DanOCan wants so much to avoid -- doesn't go away, he's just foisted it on someone else. Heinous. Indeed. Unrolling a log is such a huge burden on the next cacher.

Normally, no. But if the cache is called "Rusty, Mouldy Mess," and the terrain is a 4.5, and it requires wading through hip-deep mud, then yes, it is a quality cache. Most of us would not persue a cache like the one I am describing, but there are some who thrive on it. Austin Not that I've ever met. And if there ARE, they surely don't thrive on it because they consider it to be a quality cache. They may do it because they like to find abandoned caches in need of TLC, or lonely caches, or some other criteria, but I can assure you that "quality" is not one of them. I also worked in QA for a time. Not 13 years, but long enough to know that they DO have a definition of quality, and my job was to ensure that the product lived up to that definition. But you still refuse to define quality.

I almost always sign the next available spot. But there have been plenty of times when that next available spot is hard to determine. One cache recently had not been found in three years, and ink had run all over the place. I found a clean spot and signed it. In another, the log had been wet and then dry several times, and all of the pages were glued together. I found two pages I could separate without shredding the logbook, and put my mark. Yes it was random, and it was also the only option without doing damage. Austin

There were a number of good, intelligent, experienced people here who advised him to do exactly what he did. The reality is any actions we take may have unexpected consequences, and it is not possible to predict them all. While I agree that it isn't his decision what course of action others should or would take, I also can't bame him for following other posters advice, even if it was not what I would have done. Austin

I'm not being severe, I'm just advocating common courtesy. Common courtesy is a moving target. Sign the log. Make sure your written log is long enough. But make sure it doesn't take up too much space. Make sure it has a date. Better still, add a time, in case there's some sort of dispute about who got there 156th or 157th. Use a stamp to save space, but don't use a stamp for more than one person in a team. Make sure your log is in the correct place on the paper. Make sure you fold the paper up just right. Make sure the cache isn't open very long in the rain or snow while you're making sure your log has all the required information and is in the correct place and is the correct size. Make sure your swag is good. It should simultaneously be a toy, not a toy, plastic, not plastic, new in the package, and recycled. Log your find online quickly, but don't do it from the field with an app. Make sure your online log is long, but doesn't have anything boring in it. Talk about your adventure but don't talk about it too much. Everyone hates short logs and nobody wants to scroll through long logs. Be sure to thank the cache owner profusely, but don't use any acronyms to do so. Anything less, and you are a lazy, discourteous, disrespectful cheater. And anthing more, and you are a selfish, discourteous, disrespectful cheater. As has been said, any way you cache is wrong.

Normally, no. But if the cache is called "Rusty, Mouldy Mess," and the terrain is a 4.5, and it requires wading through hip-deep mud, then yes, it is a quality cache. Most of us would not persue a cache like the one I am describing, but there are some who thrive on it. Austin

Head toward Ely, MN. There is one up there that is awesome. You know the point I'm making. We (as society) agree on what "blue" means (or red, or whatever), even though we all see a slightly different color. Yeah, there are colorblind folks that might get it confused with another color, but essentially society has come to an agreement on what the word means. Likewise with the word "quality". We all have a slightly different view on what "quality" is, but essentially, we agree on it, enough to discuss it. I worked for quality assurance for 13 years. I work with them now. If it can't be defined, it can't be used to determine quality. "Color" is a quality. Can be defined. "Speed" is a quality, "Cost" is a quality, dimensions, other physical properties..."slick" is a quality (a bit trickier to define, but it can be done). But what is a quality cache? Sorry, but it can't be defined, and therefore the discussion is of very limited value. You can't use size, you can't use container type, hide type, location, number of times found, attributes, even favorite points have been discredited. This entire conversation proves one thing: We do not agree what is a quality cache, and in fact your inability to define it well enough to speak on it demonstrates that even you cannot reasonably discuss it.

I am imagining this and I imagine it would take one of our resident computer buffs about 10 minutes to create an easy way to automatically generate unique, 30 word logs. You are being pessimistic; ten minutes is too much time. If you want the logs to be gramattically correct, maybe 15 minutes. Austin I tried this. Took 15 minutes. Generator can create up to 67,200 random logs, all at least 31 words long. Adding one phrase to each category goes up to a quarter million random logs. Ten examples: * It was cold today. I was caching alone. This was where I expected it. Mosquitoes were not too bad. Really enjoyed the search. Another container like this. This was the highlight of a great day. * It was cold today. Just me and my wife caching today. This was where I expected it. Mosquitoes were not too bad. Enjoyable hike to the cache. Another container like this. This was the highlight of a disappointing day. * It was cold today. I was caching by myself. This took a bit of searching. The mosquiotoes were terrible. Thanks! I'm glad I came here. Cool container. This was one of my favorite days cahcing. * It was rainy today. I was caching alone. This was an easy find. Lots of muggles today. I don't know how I missed this last time. Cool container. I really had a lot of fun today. * It was rainy today. Only caching by my self today. This was an easy find. Lots of muggles today. I don't know how I missed this last time. Another container like this. This was the highlight of a mediocre day. * It was rainy today. Just me and my wife caching today. This took a bit of searching. Had the place to myself today. Thanks! I'm glad I came here. Another container like this. This was one of my favorite days cahcing. * It was cloudy today. Only caching by my self today. I made this harder than I needed to. Had the place to myself today. Thanks! I'm glad I came here. Unique container. You helped make a dull day caching better. * It was cloudy today. Only caching by my self today. This took a bit of searching. Lots of muggles today. Thanks! I'm glad I came here. Cool container. I really had a lot of fun today. * It was rainy today. I was caching alone. I made this harder than I needed to. The mosquiotoes were terrible. I don't know how I missed this last time. Another container like this. This was one of my favorite days cahcing. * It was cloudy today. There was a group of us caching today. This took a bit of searching. Had the place to myself today. I don't know how I missed this last time. Unique container. You helped make a dull day caching better. And that's exactly why I said "would have been", now it's too late, tools and statistics have taken over the game. It took longer back then, but I created a random headline generator in 1985, and had sufficient access to the technology by 1977.

Yikes. The date is not relevant to anybody looking at the logbook. The date is online. There is no requirement to date or time the log. Would you suggest the date has to follow a specific format too? Unless the cache owner is trying to validate on-line logs. Some do, and they have the right to do so.

I am imagining this and I imagine it would take one of our resident computer buffs about 10 minutes to create an easy way to automatically generate unique, 30 word logs. You are being pessimistic; ten minutes is too much time. If you want the logs to be gramattically correct, maybe 15 minutes. Austin I tried this. Took 15 minutes. Generator can create up to 67,200 random logs, all at least 31 words long. Adding one phrase to each category goes up to a quarter million random logs. Ten examples: * It was cold today. I was caching alone. This was where I expected it. Mosquitoes were not too bad. Really enjoyed the search. Another container like this. This was the highlight of a great day. * It was cold today. Just me and my wife caching today. This was where I expected it. Mosquitoes were not too bad. Enjoyable hike to the cache. Another container like this. This was the highlight of a disappointing day. * It was cold today. I was caching by myself. This took a bit of searching. The mosquiotoes were terrible. Thanks! I'm glad I came here. Cool container. This was one of my favorite days cahcing. * It was rainy today. I was caching alone. This was an easy find. Lots of muggles today. I don't know how I missed this last time. Cool container. I really had a lot of fun today. * It was rainy today. Only caching by my self today. This was an easy find. Lots of muggles today. I don't know how I missed this last time. Another container like this. This was the highlight of a mediocre day. * It was rainy today. Just me and my wife caching today. This took a bit of searching. Had the place to myself today. Thanks! I'm glad I came here. Another container like this. This was one of my favorite days cahcing. * It was cloudy today. Only caching by my self today. I made this harder than I needed to. Had the place to myself today. Thanks! I'm glad I came here. Unique container. You helped make a dull day caching better. * It was cloudy today. Only caching by my self today. This took a bit of searching. Lots of muggles today. Thanks! I'm glad I came here. Cool container. I really had a lot of fun today. * It was rainy today. I was caching alone. I made this harder than I needed to. The mosquiotoes were terrible. I don't know how I missed this last time. Another container like this. This was one of my favorite days cahcing. * It was cloudy today. There was a group of us caching today. This took a bit of searching. Had the place to myself today. I don't know how I missed this last time. Unique container. You helped make a dull day caching better.

I am imagining this and I imagine it would take one of our resident computer buffs about 10 minutes to create an easy way to automatically generate unique, 30 word logs. You are being pessimistic; ten minutes is too much time. If you want the logs to be gramattically correct, maybe 15 minutes. Austin

Has this changed? There was about a year where I was a Premium member and my wife a basic member. She would refuse to cache with me if there was a premum cache on the list because she was not allowed to log it, even if she could get to the listing using the CG number. That was the only reason I bought her a premium membership. Austin

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes... I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache. You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth? There you go. No doubt there are some who like them. Oh, I have NO DOUBT there are some that LIKE them. But I still say they would not consider them "quality". Big difference. Without a strict definition of quality, we cannot make that call. OK, you win. But you're wrong. You'd probably argue with me if I said that we all agree that the sky is blue, too. I certainly don't agree. The sky on earth varies from pale blue to cyan (the primary color) to magenta, red, orange, yellow, and even green. What's more, I know that, unless you are functionally colorblind, you have seen all of those colors. I have no doubt that there are high quality LPC's out there. The fact that I've never found one does not preclude their existence. BTW, since one of my aims in caching is places to photograph, if someone did a LPC in a dramatic scenic overlook that I might have missed otherwise, I would call that a high quality cache. Austin

My personal attribute pet peeve is "Scenic View" when the only scenery is the chain link fence and dumpster behind the local supermarket. Yes, it has happened. Austin

This is important. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a game. We should do it for fun. Austin

There. Fixed it for you. +1